The High Court of Bombay rejected a bail application filed by an accused in a theft case. The court held that sufficient material connects the applicant to the crime as a custodian of stolen property, making no case for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/2 Yadav 15.ba.53.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2019
Mehtab Nijamuddin Sayyed … Applicant Versus The Senior Police Inspector … Respondents
Vamnatal Police Station, Pune & Anr.
Mr. Mateen A. R. Shaikh for Applicant. Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP for Respondents – State. s
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : JANUARY 15, 2019.
P.C. :
. In Crime No. 248 of 2018 for an offence punishable under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the present Applicant seeks regular bail. After arrest, the Applicant faced custodial interrogation.
2/2 Yadav 15.ba.53.2019
(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused is entitled to regular bail in a case under Section 379 IPC where sufficient material connects him to the crime as custodian of stolen property.
Mehtab Nijamuddin Sayyed
The Senior Police Inspector Vamnatal Police Station Pune & Anr
Nitin W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
